> Titles on HN are not self-expression the way comments are. Titles are common property. The person who happens to submit something first shouldn't thereby get

> Titles on HN are not self-expression the way comments are. Titles are common property. The person who happens to submit something first shouldn't thereby get the right to choose the title for everyone else. Your assuming that the original "title" is relevant to the point of the submission. Or that there even exists a "title" in a meaningful way. People might be making a submission reflection some content in an article that does not relate to the title, or where the title would be misleading or irrelevant. A title might not be "comment", but it is part of the submission - why shouldn't the OP have the right to set the context of discussion? It's not like it prevents others from raising different point in the comments. > The only option is to revert to the original title, which is at least what the author intended. The original author didn't intend for their article to be shared and discussed on HN. And why their "intent" is terribly important in the first place escapes me somewhat. > the increasing prevalence of mean and stupid comments has a much higher priority than the fact that authors' original titles are not maximally informative. Yet you obviously do care enough to apply this policy in a forceful and unwarranted way. Why not just leave it then, and provide a "report editorialization" button so poorly worded or sensationalized titles can be brought to the mods attention, just like bad comments. You think you are improving HN with this policy but your not, or just don't care about the holistic value of a submission, including it's title, to the culture of HN. Which is rather sad.